No. Criticism is valid. But only if it leads to alternative hypotheses that can be tested, and then to testing of those hypotheses. That is known as "constructive criticism". What you are doing is known as "bitching".

Sorry, but your arguments remind me exactly of those used by communists. They also accepted ctriticism but only if it was constructive . Unbelievable. They used to say "Criticism yes, but only constructive one". You have to add your own solution of the problem, otherwise you was a saboteur. Consequently criticism was almost impossible.

It is interesting that "sciences" like marxism or (neo)darwinism require from their critics to be constructive. Do you think it is normal procedure also in the area of real sciences like physics, math? Do not criticise discrepancies in the Maxwell electromagnetic theory! Yet physicists made computations (before 1900) and came to conclusions that this theory is unable to explain some phenomena.It was Max Planck who gave explanation of them. According you physiscists before Planck were "bitching".

Nice try. First you call us National Socialists, now you call us Communists. You are not very bright, are you? And now you're trying to compare yourelf to Max Planck??

Look, moron. You waste our time with your whining about "Darwinism are evil! You are all communist! You are all atheist! All swans are white, Darwinism can not explain!"

You have not attempted to explain ANYTHING. You have not offered ANY HYPOTHESES. You produce NOTHING.

You don't think 'Darwinism' can explain the color of moths and swans? What is YOUR explanation? Do you even HAVE one?

Do you have ANYTHING other than bitching and calling people Nazis and Communists, you pathetic worm?

--------------"Rich is just mad because he thought all titties had fur on them until last week when a shorn transvestite ruined his childhood dreams by jumping out of a spider man cake and man boobing him in the face lips." - Erasmus

Nice try. First you call us National Socialists, now you call us Communists. You are not very bright, are you? And now you're trying to compare yourelf to Max Planck??.blablabla....

Do you have ANYTHING other than bitching and calling people Nazis and Communists, you pathetic worm?

Are you having another hysterical attack? I didn't call anyone here a communist or a nazi. Take your Dawkin's Selfish gene and have a rest for a while.

Martin, science is not accomplished by bitching about Dawkins, atheists, communists, and nazis.

DO YOU HAVE any alternate solutions for these things you think Darwinism can't explain?

a) yesb) no

If no, quit bothering us. Go back to brownnosing Davison.

--------------"Rich is just mad because he thought all titties had fur on them until last week when a shorn transvestite ruined his childhood dreams by jumping out of a spider man cake and man boobing him in the face lips." - Erasmus

I am afraid the discussion is over. We hit a point where you accepted probably a fact that darwinism is unable to explain many coloration of living organisms (Arden and Lenny do not follow discussion btw.). You have started to ask me for another explanation. Of course there are many scientists who devoted their lives studying the problem of coloration and who came to conclusion that problem is more complicated that neodawinistic oversimplification. The problem was studied on color patterns of butterfly wings and some evolutionary patterns were found that are independent from natural and sexual selection.

1) Theodor Eimer observed the fact that evolution of color patterns on butteflies wings follows a transformtion rules (Homoegenesis). Many authors confirmed that this observation is correct. First lungitudinal stripes, their dissolution into spots and tranformation of these spots into transverse striping and finally into one-coloured appereance. He described even leaf-mimic butterflies and their trasformation from the beginning to the end (break-up of mimicry patterns which should have given "survival advantage" to species and should be strongly selected against its break-up according darwinism.)

3) New era represents studies by Svancic, Henke, Suffert. Svancic devoted his life studying comparative morphology of butterfly color patterns and worked up a "basic plan" of wings drawings. It is something like "body plan" in animals.

Much more can be found in Stanislav Komarek book:"Mimicry, Aposematism and Related Phenomena in Animals & Plants: Bibliography 1800-1990"

I am aware of it. Anyway in my previous post at point 1) I reproduced thoughts of Theodor Eimer. He observed something that can be called "law" of evolution of coloration of butterlies/lizards. The problem was studied very thoroughly by many non-darwinian, but evolutionary scientists and I don't see reason to dismiss their work because it doesn't fit to neodarwinian scheme.

I would reccomend you link I have given above about Eimer's idea. It' s just one page.

--------------I could not answer, but should maintain my ground.-
Charles Darwin

For a discussion to be over, it would have first of all to have taken place.

It was not my fault. I have tried to point out many cases of coloration where (neo)darwinistic oversimplifications are not plausible explanation of development of it.Folks here denigrated me.

Quote

1903? Is there anything more recent? Say, for instance taking account of current developments in embryology and molecular biology?

I quoted some modern researches that deal with the same problem. Because they do not support mainstream neodarwinistic views they are ignored. Nijhout who studied problem of mimicry of butterflies (internet is full of his works on-line) didn't quoted Eimer once. But the problem of mimicry had been studied much more before WW2 as it is now. Nijhout quoted only very briefly Suffert, Svancic and Henke in 1991.

Do you mean that Eimer's many years studies of development of coloration in lizards/butterflies are not valid nowadays? Did you or somebody else refute them?

Or is it not - like othear unpleasant theories - only ignored to become dismissed now as "outdated"?

You dismiss almost 80 years of German biological thinking as outdated. Yes, it is ignored (or even ridiculed by you) as was once Goethe theory of color perception. After more than 150 years his theory turned up to be correct. And Goethe was more a philosopher. Eimer was a scientist.

--------------I could not answer, but should maintain my ground.-
Charles Darwin

For a discussion to be over, it would have first of all to have taken place.

It was not my fault. I have tried to point out many cases of coloration where (neo)darwinistic oversimplifications are not plausible explanation of development of it.Folks here denigrated me.

Quote

1903? Is there anything more recent? Say, for instance taking account of current developments in embryology and molecular biology?

I quoted some modern researches that deal with the same problem. Because they do not support mainstream neodarwinistic views they are ignored. Nijhout who studied problem of mimicry of butterflies (internet is full of his works on-line) didn't quoted Eimer once. But the problem of mimicry had been studied much more before WW2 as it is now. Nijhout quoted only very briefly Suffert, Svancic and Henke in 1991.

Do you mean that Eimer's many years studies of development of coloration in lizards/butterflies are not valid nowadays? Did you or somebody else refute them?

Or is it not - like othear unpleasant theories - only ignored to become dismissed now as "outdated"?

You dismiss almost 80 years of German biological thinking as outdated. Yes, it is ignored (or even ridiculed by you) as was once Goethe theory of color perception. After more than 150 years his theory turned up to be correct. And Goethe was more a philosopher. Eimer was a scientist.

Quote

I quoted some modern researches that deal with the same problem.

Link?

Quote

Do you mean that Eimer's many years studies of development of coloration in lizards/butterflies are not valid nowadays?

No, but I would distinguish between his observations and his conclusions. Evo-devo was not a even a twinkle in anyone's eye in 1903.

Quote

You dismiss almost 80 years of German biological thinking as outdated. Yes, it is ignored (or even ridiculed by you) as was once Goethe theory of color perception. After more than 150 years his theory turned up to be correct. And Goethe was more a philosopher. Eimer was a scientist.

I am not sure you are right about Goethe's ideas on colour being correct, at least in a scientific context. If Eimer's work is significant, why is it not cited in later research, as is Darwin and Mendel, for example?

As I told you. The research of rules of coloration which seem to be inate in animal world (and oddly enough why some combination of colors are not present in Nature) are to be found in work of Lucas H. Peterich(1972) Biological chromatology. The laws of color and design in nature. ACTA bIOTHER.21:24-46.

No, but I would distinguish between his observations and his conclusions. Evo-devo was not a even a twinkle in anyone's eye in 1903.

Eimer published his 500 pages opus magnum second part of which deals on butterflies in 1895. Because evo-devo was not established in those times (what about HAECKEL?) all his conclusions are wrong? Consequently all conclusions of prominent darwinists like Edward Bagnall Poulton or Ronald Fisher about mimicry are wrong either?

Quote

I am not sure you are right about Goethe's ideas on colour being correct, at least in a scientific context.

I am much more sure and you can open a thread about it.Last time I argued about it with pharyngulists I was surprised by ignorance of "knowledgeable evolutionists" about the matter of complicated process of color perception.

Quote

If Eimer's work is significant, why is it not cited in later research, as is Darwin and Mendel, for example?

It was cited before 2 WW very often. It is neverthenless very curious that works of Naeff, Eimer, Dacque, Troll are not to be found on inet. Leo Bergs Nomogenesis appeared in Russian just recently and Adolf Portman's "Neue Wege der Biologie" is available on-line in Czech translation only. The great tradition and work of these scientists is almost fully forgotten. If you think it just because they were wrong it is your opinion.

--------------I could not answer, but should maintain my ground.-
Charles Darwin

Arden Chatfield pursuits me with his stupid questionary "how old is the Earth" whenever I wrote something. I am afraid Alan Fox catches the same monomaniacal urge. He pursuits me not only here but also at ISCID where he continues giving me his own question from AtBC about dino's DNA age.

Folks here are obviously unable to adress any problem I have proposed and restrict themselves to refinig their questions and questionaries instead.

I am afraid I draw their attention like ladybirds draw attention of wasps (oviposting into ladybird):

---

And now back to coloration. Obviously a ladybird is very conspicuous with its red coloration. Darwinists need to explain the fact, but they do not have any explanation except aposematism. Ladybirds are according their armachair preconception poisonous and they signal it by red color (darwinists of course dismiss the fact that some concicinellids are yellow, or black or red with black dots and predator should remember all their patterns.) ? ?

The extract from the "poisonous" ladybird blood was used as medicine in the previous century.

Ladybirds has many avian and insect predators. There are experiments that proved their palatability for many kind of beetles.

Neverthenless darwinists see in similar coloration of other species ladybird mimics.

--------------I could not answer, but should maintain my ground.-
Charles Darwin

Arden Chatfield pursuits me with his stupid questionary "how old is the Earth" whenever I wrote something.

('Pursues', Martin. 'Pursuit' is a noun. And you want 'question' here, not 'questionary'.)

Why is the question 'stupid', Martin? Seems very relevant to me. Is it 'stupid' because you're afraid to answer it?

Here's your chance to redeem yourself.

*ahem*

1) do you believe common descent is correct?

2) the Earth is:

a) 4.5 billion years oldb) around 12,000 years oldc) around 6,000 years oldd) probably a couple million years olde) none of the above.

I'm sure this time you'll have the courage of your convictions to answer. Right?

--------------"Rich is just mad because he thought all titties had fur on them until last week when a shorn transvestite ruined his childhood dreams by jumping out of a spider man cake and man boobing him in the face lips." - Erasmus

Why is the question 'stupid', Martin? Seems very relevant to me. Is it 'stupid' because you're afraid to answer it?

I have addressed some problems of biological evolution. As you know I am of opinion that evolution is a fact, but random mutation and natural selection play no role in it.

There is most probably many frontloadings as John opinion is or there is some kind of "entelechie" that directs evolution. In both cases biology have some limits exploring the deepest secrets of evolution of life.

We are here not at a geological forum and we are not here even on a geological thread. That's why your question is off-topic. I will never answer your off-topic questions at these threads.

But feel free to asking them again and again.

--------------I could not answer, but should maintain my ground.-
Charles Darwin

Why is the question 'stupid', Martin? Seems very relevant to me. Is it 'stupid' because you're afraid to answer it?

I have addressed some problems of biological evolution. As you know I am of opinion that evolution is a fact, but random mutation and natural selection play no role in it.

You still haven't answered the questions, Martin.

You seem very afraid, Martin. Why is that?

--------------"Rich is just mad because he thought all titties had fur on them until last week when a shorn transvestite ruined his childhood dreams by jumping out of a spider man cake and man boobing him in the face lips." - Erasmus

Why do you think I am afraid answer them? Not at all. But the discussion here is about coloration of fungi.

I would appreciate if you gave some arguments or ideas supporting "natural selection" view in fungi or insect realm. You have so many examples - so many fruting bodies of fungi, so many "perfect" or "imperfect" wasp mimics, so many ladybirds as aposematics or almost perfect mimicry of many leaf insects. Why don't you discuss anything? Why is that?

--------------I could not answer, but should maintain my ground.-
Charles Darwin

Martin, there's now a whole thread devoted just to you and these questions. Dig in.

--------------"Rich is just mad because he thought all titties had fur on them until last week when a shorn transvestite ruined his childhood dreams by jumping out of a spider man cake and man boobing him in the face lips." - Erasmus

--------------"Rich is just mad because he thought all titties had fur on them until last week when a shorn transvestite ruined his childhood dreams by jumping out of a spider man cake and man boobing him in the face lips." - Erasmus

But you know, I am not John. Btw. who is asking except you? Who are "we"?

If more people ask me I will answer of course. Now I see only you and you have never adressed any issue I proposed except denigrating me. I see no reason to discuss with you off topic questions.

Bye.

Martin, certainly you must have firmly held convictions regarding these two questions, why do you refuse to proudly share them?

--------------"Rich is just mad because he thought all titties had fur on them until last week when a shorn transvestite ruined his childhood dreams by jumping out of a spider man cake and man boobing him in the face lips." - Erasmus

By the way, natural selection explains the distribution of trophic groups of aquatic organisms along the River Continuum. But you can address that much later after you get done on the other thread telling us about your lofty opinions about such things as the age of the earth and common descent. Toodles!!

--------------You're obviously illiterate as hell. Peach, bro.-FtK

Finding something hard to believe based on the evidence, is science.-JoeG